Talk:Poitín

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Northern Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and drink Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Ireland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the image-needed parameter once the image is added. Spirits Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirits, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spirits or Distilled beverages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritsWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritsTemplate:WikiProject SpiritsSpirits Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Spirits WikiProject task list: This list is transcluded from the tasks page, to edit it click here. Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Spirits: Tagging all articles that fall under our scope with {{WikiProject Spirits}} and assessing their quality and importance to the project.

I think it would be better if it was mentioned when and why it was made illegal and then talk about how it has since been legalised.

"Some rural Irish people still pour it on wounds and sores for its disinfectant properties, and with as high an alcohol volume as it has, it certainly does." It certainly does what?

Disinfect wounds?

I'd like to see more in this article about what makes poteen separate from other whiskeys. I've read other places that poteen is often manufactured from potato, but I'd like to get some authoritative confirmation on this before making an edit.

Incorrect. Poitín is made the same way as whiskey. It is grain alcohol and is not produced from potatoes. My head is swimming with it right now. Jm butler 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old topic, but to clarify, it entirely depends on the definition being used. I've found numerous reliable sources that say poteen is traditionally made from malted barley, later in history it was sometimes made from potatoes, and later it was potentially made from anything high in saccarides (sugars/starches). I believe it is a common misconception that poteen is, by definition, made from potatoes, and I'd love to find a source that confirms the existence of this misconception. -Verdatum (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Poitín redirects to Poitin. However since the correct Irish spelling is with the fada, I think it should be the other way around. Even the first sentence of the article has it spelt as Poitín. Any opinions on it? Dave 16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. While it's widely ignored, according to the English language alphabet article, diacritics are not used in English language terms, and IMHO an English language Wikipedia should have its articles at the English language titles. 24.18.215.132 03:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the English language alphabet article:

"Diacritic marks are not common in English, appearing mainly in foreign and loan-words such as résumé, naïve, and façade. Often such use of diacritics is optional but in some words such as "soupçon" the only spelling found in English dictionaries (the OED and others) uses the diacritic."

This doesn't say that diacritics aren't used in English, rather that "true English" words don't often have them but "loan words", as it calls them, would use them. With regard to the English version of Wikipedia using diacritics, I would give examples of déjà vu and résumé which both use diacritics in their titles. The word poitín is an Irish word, the correct spelling is with a fada and should be used as such, IMHO. Dave 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Dave 15:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can anyone say "Overnight a large proportion of the Irish population became "criminals" as has anyone who has distilled it privately since" A better suited sentene would be "when the distillation law was passed it became illegal for people to distill poitin" We dont even know how many people made poitin back then so how anybody can say a large proportion of the Irish population became "criminals" is beyond me.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poit%C3%ADn" --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.186.81 (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thedrinkshop.com/products/nlpdetail.php?prodid=1583

This looks to be quite strong, I don't think you can get much stronger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.40.118.79 (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

95%... from the homebrewers in the mountains —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.140.49 (talk) 05:07, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

95% from the "homebrewers" in the mountains? What utter bullshit. Doublings will only come out of the pot at 65% or less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.133.6 (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

95%ABV has been removed as there was no reference and I could not find after research any Poitin/Poteen exceeding 90%ABV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanbentley (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

someone may be confusing %ABV and %proof - 95 proof would be about 55%ABV and so easily within reach for a home distiller. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2008, Irish Poteen was accorded G.I. (Geographical Indicative Status) by the EU Council and Parliament, under EU Regulation 208/2008." As far as I can tell, Regulation 208/2008 is this document here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:063:0001:0002:EN:PDF which discusses import values for certain fruits and vegetables. The document makes no mention of poteen with any spelling, nor any other distilled spirit. Can anyone clear this up? -Verdatum (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bewildered and surprised to find this article under the Irish word "poitín" rather than its English version "poteen". Can someone please explain the rationale? Compare Shillelagh (club) (from Irish sail éille), leprechaun (from Irish leipreachán), shamrock (from Irish seamróg), etc., etc. As far as i can see, this article's title is the single exception to the norm of using the English version of a loan-word rather than the form found in the source language. Any clarification appreciated. Thanks.
--Yumegusa (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was also surprised when I first saw the article title. I had likewise been used to the spelling "poteen". Still I have no proof that it is any more of a Common Name for the product in the english language. A Google search reveals:

• Poitín - 19,400
• poitin - 72,300
• poteen - 108,000

No strong evidence one way or the other. So for now, I'm satisfied with a redirect. If however, most major english dictionaries indeed prefer poteen over poitin, perhaps a pagemove would be appropriate. I personally haven't checked into this yet. -Verdatum (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Searching on site:ie gives:

• about 2,000 English pages for -Poitín poitin site:ie.
• about 679 English pages for Poitín -poitin site:ie
• about 1,850 English pages for poteen site:ie

Which would suggest that poitin is marginally more common than poteen on Irish web sites, but that they are both three times more common than poitín-Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for poitín rather than potheen or whatever other spelling there is as poitín is how it's been spelt for as long as I remember. It seems a bit silly to use a wrong spelling when there is a right spelling. 78.16.212.240 (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverted, so here is my justification. The article currently makes a claim "The beverage is distilled in a small pot and is among the strongest alcoholic beverages in the world." the two facts are unrelated, so I believe compounding them is a bit silly. I think the fact about pot distillation is better explained in the same breath as the etymology of the word. As far as it being among the strongest alcoholic beverages in the world, this is highly contentious. As with moonshine, poteen is produced by private distillers. They can make it any strength they like. Regardless, by nature of it being a pot-distilled beverage, the waste involved in achieving higher concentrations generally makes it unreasonable to achieve the higher percentages found in column distilled (non-anhydrous) pure grain alcohol (95%). Since the statment can be considered redundant with the previous claim of being 90%-95% alcohol, and the statement cannot currently be verified from a reliable source, I believe it should be deleted. -Verdatum (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the sentence is structured wrongly and have corrected it. Regarding moonshine and private distillation, as the article states, there are two officially licensed distilleries in Ireland producing Poitín and their strongest product "Knockeen Hills - Extra Gold Strength" is 90% ABV. In any case, no contention is inferred in stating it is among the strongest. A citation would certainly be needed for any claim of being the strongest. 90.193.39.52 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If considering the "Licensed" poteens, those actually range from 80 proof to 180 proof (40% to 90% ABV). This is where the definition of poteen becomes extremely garbled. If there is no contention (or novelty) in the inferrence (see WP:SYN), there is no point in writing it out. The claim does not add anything to the article, and instead, vaguely comes off as WP:PEACOCK. -Verdatum (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the title of this article remains Poitín (see alternative suggestion above), I would assume the IPA pronunciation would reflect the Irish pronunciation of Poitín, rather than the English pronunciation of Poteen or Potcheen (though perhaps I'm wrong in this). If it is so, I would suggest [ˈpˠitiːn] would be closer to what I've heard and how I would naturally pronounce the Irish spelling. I have never studied IPA in any way so pardon me if I'm way off the mark with those but I was directed here by someone who reads IPA who had got their pronunciation (which I thought sounded wrong) from here. The o in the Irish spelling serves to velarize and doesn't really come out too much in pronunciation; I imagine the o in the English spelling is derived mostly from looking at the Irish spelling rather that listening to it's pronunciation. Does anyone fluent in Irish/IPA know what I'm saying, or am I as I said off the mark?

Also, I suppose this could count as original research so it might have to be justified with a reference? Or would that be overly pedantic... _ɹəəpıɔnı 11:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poitín and poteen are pronounced identically: "putcheen" or "put-sheen" (same sound with alternate spellings). I speak both languages. — O'Dea (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a significant proportion of this article appears to be an infomercial for knockeen hills and bunratty poteens, I would be interested to know whether either of those drinks are made in pot stills. My guess is not. Either way, as the name poteen would suggest, it is not produced on an industrial/commercial/legal scale anyway. I am also interested to know if "poteen" is a protected status (or whatever you call it), how come it's also made commercially in Wales? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.225.254 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was reverted for the reason: Rv WP:SYNTH - not stated as such in refs.

One of the references specifically states: "Drinks’ expert Michael Morris tells us that the two spirits are from the same family – except whiskey is legal and poteen illegal"

The other one specifically states: "At an illegal distribution centre near Cookstown, HMRC officers, supporting PSNI, seized in November almost 240 litres of distilled poteen, 655 litres of illegal fuel, 4.6 kilograms of hand rolling tobacco and 11,000 cigarettes."

The first is a Northern Irish newspaper, and the second is the Revenue & Customs website. As these sites clearly suggest that poteen is illegal, I'm reverting the article back to include my edits again.

If anyone has any better sources which can inform us as to the legal status of poteen in Northern Ireland, please add or replace the links I have included. --86.146.48.34 (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that illegal distillation is, well, illegal in both jurisdictions. Your wording implies that there is a fundamental difference in response by the authorities in Northern Ireland and the Republic. The legal product referred to in the article, "Oliver's distillery shipped almost 100,000 bottles to America, Britain, France and Belgium last year.", is evidently not illegal in the UK. So yes, your assertion amounts to WP:SYNTH unless you can find a specific ref stating this licenced product is illegal in NI. RashersTierney (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what "Synth" is, but I do know that producing poteen in Northern Ireland is illegal and I know of no off-licences which sell it or a diluted or less potent version of it. That's not to say it could be found sold somewhere in Northern Ireland legally. Customs officers or police seized poteen, according to the Customs website, so presumably that tells us something of its status. The Derry Journal doesn't distinguish and simply states that it is illegal, as opposed to whiskey, which it states isn't illegal.

The Revenue Commissioners Office of the Republic doesn't have jurisdiction over Northern Ireland, so therefore the law regarding the status of poteen in the two jurisdictions is likely to be different.

Clearly we need some kind of definitive source which can clear up any doubt anyone has as to the legal status of the production, consumption and distribution of poteen in Northern Ireland. This article doesn't suffice as it stood and you are plainly not happy with sources which state that it is illegal in Northern Ireland.

A search of the PSNI website didn't produce any information on "poteen" or "poitín". There may be other sources though - perhaps Hansard or something?

I would suggest keeping the article as I left it and adding a reference improvement tag (in-line) to the addition I made, until maybe somebody can come up with a better source. :) --86.146.48.34 (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two entirely distinct products at issue, which you seem to have conflated. One is manufactured and distributed illegally, in both jurisdictions. There are also legally produced spirits styling themselves Poitin, Poteen and Potcheen. For example :this product, marketed as Celtic Poteen is manufactured legally in Wales. RashersTierney (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, "The Derry Journal doesn't distinguish and simply states that it is illegal, as opposed to whiskey, which it states isn't illegal." So yeah - I agree with you. We should attempt to get this sorted. --86.146.48.34 (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between 'new' licensed products using variations on the name and the 'traditional' illegal spirit should be made more clear, with the former probably discussed in their own dedicated section titled ==Legally produced poitin== or similar. The infobox also currently looks like a promo for one producer. RashersTierney (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The HMRC reference also states that cigarettes and rolling tobacco were seized but no one claims they are illegal, as such I ah removed the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.97.207 (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Apologies this was me and I had become signed out for some reason.[reply]

Poitin/poteen is, as the name suggests, is distilled in a pot-still. Neither of the producers of "legal poteen/potcheen" use pot-stills to distil their product. I would thus posit that neither are really producing poitin. Further to that, I can assert with confidence that "poteen", in the traditional sense, does not come at a strength higher than 70%, 50-65% being usual and standard for any pot-distilled spirit, wherever it might come from (the laws of physics, dontcha know?). I would be also interested in seeing a citation for the "opposition" that Irish customs & excise "withdrew" to allow poteen to be manufactured. Lastly, the fake "poteen/potcheen" legally manufactured in Ireland are also legal in NI, so the distinction as it stands, semantically, in the article, is bogus. I am the same person who wrote the section titled "infomercial". Further to my last edits, I have taken out the sentence in the "production" section where it states that a wash would be made of ingredients x y & z, as it is just one of thousands of recipes, and not necessarily one representative of the norm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.178.220 (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there's more (remember him?), I took away the reference to "highly alcoholic", as it is meaningless, and changed the proposed %ABV to a more representative range for distilled beverages (the strength of which canvary widely). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.178.220 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see Cooley has entered the Poitín market with release of it's new "Cooley Single Pot Still Poitín". This is basically unmatured whiskey, in a couple years time (3+) some of the same batch of production will be sold as "Single Pot Still" Irish whiskey. http://www.irishwhiskeynotes.com/2011/11/new-cooley-poitin.html http://forum.irishwhiskeysociety.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1291 http://cooleypoitin.com/ I don't know whether it's double distilled or triple distilled in their pot stills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.123.243.220 (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a picture of some Poitin/Poteen Bottles and this is now in the infobox - I think actually seeing some Poiten, rather a cultural piece of artwork is more helpful for people seeking some initial information. the paining by Brian Whelan has been moved further down the page. --Ethanbentley (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following paragraph "The quality of poitín was highly variable, depending on the skill of the distiller and the quality of his equipment. If poorly produced, it can contain dangerous amounts of methanol and can blind or kill.^[1]"

Because there is no possibility of producing methanol in dangerous amounts when fermenting sugar with yeast. The article is inaccessible but the deaths obviously results from people drinking industrial methanol that someone told them was poitin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.235.253.150 (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will agree that toxic levels of methanol can be produced in the presence of pectin. How could pectin be present in the fermenting liquor? The same way any contaminant could be introduced into an entirely unregulated manufacturing process. RashersTierney (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that pectin can produce methanol in dangerous amounts. The percentage of Pectine is 0,5-1 % of the weight of most fruits and the methyl groups of the pectine are located on the carbon ring which makes up the majority of the weight of the pectine. The paragraph is therefore both unnecessary and misleading. You can add a list of ways to get poisoned by moonshine but it really doesn't matter in the case of Poitin as the Pectine isn't sufficient to kill people even if it you made it out of apples instead of the malted barley, grain, potatoes or whey it is supposed to be made of.

So essentially you got an unverifiable reference claiming something that is a physical impossibility. Your new reference may be interesting as a "hazard" but it doesn't support the idea that poor production technique would cause methanol poisoning. Given the context of the article I think it is directly irresponsible further add to the mystique of Poitin by supporting an urban legend about how hard it is to produce moonshine. http://homedistiller.org/intro/methanol/methanol http://yarchive.net/med/methanol_poisoning.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.235.253.150 (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And another link on the subject: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-05/fyi-can-drinking-moonshine-really-make-me-go-blind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.235.253.150 (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the disputed sentence in to three referenced statements. /1 poitin can kill /2 it has been claimed to cause blindness /3 but blindness is possibly due to adulteration. I have used your cite for the adulteration claim. I think we've covered all angles here.--Dmol (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I changed some things here. In the opening section, I removed the references to "the strongest" and "highly alcoholic" (or whatever it was), for reasons of factuality. It is a distilled spirit. The production methods are/were variable, too much so for subjective exclamations such as those I removed. I also removed the reference to poteen being made from whey. Producing alcohol from whey is an industrial process that was developed to make money from a otherwise unusable byproduct of the cheese industry. It was developed in the 1970's at the Carberry dairy plant in Cork. Google "Carberry Process". It is simply not something that could have ever been done "traditionally". http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-iBd2mplgQwC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=whey+ethanol+ireland&source=bl&ots=gclCulU1-F&sig=gHpnJf1JkOlCHPWyTGfQWM66BUg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z2rFUqOcJLGc0wWIyIDADw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=whey%20ethanol%20ireland&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhasmanath (talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the "legal status" section I trimmed some extraneous items. There was a lot of confusion between "poteen" the illicit spirit and "poteen" (or whatever) the commercially available spirit, most of it some sort of marketing garbage that does not belong on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhasmanath (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also just removed the massive picture of some commercial bottles of poteen sitting by the Brooklyn bridge. We already have the one picture of fake poteen, we don't need two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhasmanath (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference to poteen being made from whey, as it is not possible that whey was ever illicitly processed into alcohol due to the complexity of the "Carberry Process", as mentioned before. Also sugar beets are not made into poteen, but sugar made from beets can be, so I have removed the reference to poteen being made from sugar beets. To elaborate, when "Dave" procures a 25kg sack of sugar "off the back of a lorry", you would say that the poteen he makes from it is made from sugar, not sugar beets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhasmanath (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whey is used to make a current brand ^[1] of poitin, as this product has been around for sometime it's fair to say that a spirit can be produced and correctly labelled poitin or poteen and made from whey. The point of historical accuracy is a mute one and this article covers both historical and present day manufacture of poitin.Ethanbentley (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhasmanath here again; I've removed whey and beets. Again! If we want to talk about everything that might be or could be distilled into poteen, let's just say; "Anything fermentable". If we are talking about "traditional poitin" let's go with what has traditionally been used. The faux poteen made from whey is vodka re-labelled for tourists and dummies. I personally object to the idea of "legal poteen", but understanding that that is my personal prejudice, I will offer that we remove "traditionally made from x, y & z" and replace with "poteen can be distilled from any fermentable". If we keep "traditionally", we must exclude beets and whey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.169.111 (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this adjustment has been made. I understand the oxymoron of legal poitin, rather like legal moonshine. But with the GI status and new technical file I think it's the direction the category is moving too. Many thanks. Ethanbentley (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off thanks to all the contributors who are constantly helping to improve the quality of the article and improve its objectivity. There seems to be a question about whether or not this article should only be concerned with what is considered to be historical production of poitin or whether it should include all poitin available today, regardless of provenance.

My view is that it should include both because: 1) Wikipedia is a modern day source and will evolve as time goes on. 2) Given the illicit nature of poitin (you could argue that "legal poitin" is something of an oxymoron) it is very difficult to find definitive proof for was/was not "traditional". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanbentley (talk • contribs) 10:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, ethanbently, but if that is your agenda, please be consistent in your editing. I.e. as mentioned above, if you want to include any distilled, potable spirit, which is the EU definition of "Irish Poteen", then we can say that, but we must remove any reference to "tradition", or have two seperate sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.169.111 (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few details regarding the new technical file (2015) - although I think this area could be expanded to give a little more detail without the article becoming overwhelmingly tehcnical. Ethanbentley (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file c:File:Erskine Nicol - A Nip Against the Cold.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: One of these was tagged as a duplicate of another, but none are exact/scaled-down duplicates. File:Erskine Nicol.jpg appears to be the highest quality original, but it has a border which should be cropped as a separate file. I propose that we delete the other two and replace all usage of them with a slightly cropped version. 
Deletion request: link 

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]